Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused Supreme Court Bars Post-Divorce Maintenance Claims When Wife Voluntarily Waived Maintenance In Settlement Agreement Advocate Is An Officer Of Court, Not Mere Agent Of Client: Allahabad High Court Distinguishes Between Active Concealment & Statement In Ignorance, Slaps Cost On Litigants For Misleading Bench Cannot Summon Accused Mechanically On Protest Petition Without Assigning Justifiable Reasons: Andhra Pradesh High Court Increment Not A Bounty: Allahabad High Court Rules Public Holiday Cannot Delay Pay Hike For Teachers Joining Next Working Day Paying Taxes Or Utility Connections Confer No Legal Ownership Over Govt Land': Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Demolition Of Encroachment 'Cannot Compel Public Authority To Collect Data From Private Bodies': Bombay High Court Quashes CIC Orders Directing SEBI To Procure BSE Records Under RTI Act Section 10 CPC Cannot Stay Previously Instituted Title Suit Pending Subsequent Probate Case; Inherent Powers Under Section 151 Inapplicable When Probate Dismissed: Calcutta High Court Mere Phone Calls Without Transcripts No Ground For Murder Conspiracy: Delhi High Court Clear Violation Of Section 42 NDPS Act': Gujarat High Court Holds Failure To Record Secret Info In Writing Fatal When Police Officer Had Time To Act JK High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Cop Accused Of Threatening Advocate Over Phone Call Without Prior Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC Custody Unwarranted For Mere Formalities Once Weapon Is Recovered: Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail In BNS Axe Attack Case Circumstances Of Crime Can Be Assessed During Trial: High Court Upholds Trial Of Minor As Adult Under JJ Act In Murder Case Statutory Deposit Under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC Is A Sine Qua Non; Litigant Cannot Stall Auction Sale By Merely Blaming Counsel: Madras High Court Ban Junk Food Within 50 Metres Of Schools: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance To Enforce FSSAI Norms, Protect Children From Obesity

Delhi High Court Upholds Constitutionality Validity of Section 5(v) of HMA, 1955; Rejects Plea Challenging Prohibition of Marriage Between Sapindas”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court today upheld the constitutionality of Section 5(v) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), which prohibits marriages between sapindas, unless sanctioned by custom. The judgment was passed in the case of W.P.(C) 910/2024, where the petitioner, Neetu Grover, challenged the section citing its violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The bench, comprising the Acting Chief Justice and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, observed, “The Petitioner seeks to challenge Section 5(v) of the HMA Act on the ground that though her marriage with her distant cousin Mr. Gagan Grover was consensual, he has abdicated his responsibilities towards the Petitioner and her son by taking recourse to the impugned Section.” The Court noted the presumption in favor of the constitutionality of statutes enacted by the Parliament and emphasized that a statute can be declared unconstitutional only under specific established grounds.

In dismissing the petition, the Court remarked, “We are of the considered opinion that, no tenable grounds in law for challenging the said impugned provision have been placed before this Court during arguments or pleaded in the petition.”

The petitioner had argued that the impugned Section was violative of Article 14 as it denied her the right to be in a valid marriage with Mr. Gagan Grover, her distant cousin, due to the lack of proof of custom in her community. However, the Court found that the Petitioner’s marriage fell within the prohibited category of sapindas as recognized under the HMA and was not saved by any exception of custom or usage.

Further, the Court held, “This Court is unable to accept the contention of the Petitioner that the impugned section is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the exception in the impugned Section is only for marriages between persons on the basis of custom having force of law, which requires stringent proof and its existence is to be adjudicated upon by Court of law.”

Date of Decision: 22nd January, 2024

NEETU GROVER VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

 

Latest Legal News